Crl.Misc.No.2823/2024 KABC010079082024 IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61) :Present : Sri Narashimsa.M.V., B.Com., LL.B., LX Addl. City C ivil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated: This the 27th day of March 2024 : Crl.Misc. No. 2823/2024: Petitioner/ Accused :-

1. Shashikumar (A-1) S/o. Balaram, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.01, 1st Main, Satanthrapalya Srirampuram, Bengaluru

2. M. Venkatesh(A-2) S/o Muniyan, Aged about 50 years, R/a No. U-10, 1st Cross, Satanthrapalya Sriramapuram, Bengaluru

(Rep by Sri PNR – Advocate) V/s RESPONDENT : The State of Karnataka By : Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru. (Rep. by: Public Prosecutor) Crl.Misc.No.2823/2024

ORDER

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Mahadevapura Police Station Crime No.815/2014 have filed this anticipatory bail application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail.

2. Brief facts of the case as forthcoming from petition are: That

complainant found misappropriation of gift vouchers across their store at Phoenix Market city,Bengaluru and other stores approximately amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-, A-1 to 3 have confessed in writing and accepted their mistakes. In confession letter they have blamed Mr. Shashikumar B, Store Manager of ED HARY store at Phoenix Market City, Mahadevapura who was master mind of the whole scheme of this fraud activity, on the basis of first information, complainant police have registered FIR in crime No. 815/2014 for the offence punishable u/S 420, 406, 465, 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The grounds urged in this petition are that: Petitioners are

innocent of the alleged offence, they were not aware about alleged incident occurred on the particular date and time, they neither directly or indirectly involved in alleged offence, respondent police have completed investigation and filed charge sheet, allegations are Crl.Misc.No.2823/2024 totally false and there is no prima facie case, petitioners are working in private company, they are only taking care of old age parents, they are only bread winner of their family, there is no specific overt act attributed against these petitioners, they are prepared to furnish adequate and acceptable surety to ensure their regular appearance before court, they are willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court, they never abscond nor delay the court proceedings. Hence, prayed for allowing bail application.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed detailed objections to

bail application along with memo of instruction given by Investigating Officer. In objections it is stated that said accused persons have cheated complainant, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. At this stage, if they are granted anticipatory bail, there is every possibility of they threatening the witnesses and destructing evidence collected against them. Hence, prayed for rejection of bail petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has produced certified copy

of entire order sheet in Mahadevapura P.S. Crime No.815/2014, copy of charge sheet, copy of orders passed in Crl. Misc No. 1156/2015. Crl.Misc.No.2823/2024

6. Heard the learned Advocate for Petitioners/A-1 and A-2

and learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The point that arise for consideration is :

Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners/ accused No.1 & A2 in Whether Mahadevapura Police Station crime No.815/2014, deserves to be allowed ?

8. My finding to the above point is in the negative for the

following :- R E A S O N S

9. POINT No.1: Offence alleged against A-1 and A-2 is

punishable u/S 406, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. Charge sheet has been filed on 22.12.2014. Charge sheet discloses that A-1 and A2 were granted bail prior to filing of charge sheet.

9. Order sheet in Mahadevapura Police Station crime

No.815/2014, / CC No. 10672/2016 reveals that A-1 was produced before learned Magistrate on 25.12.2014, remanded to custody, subsequently, bail application filed by A-1 came to be allowed, vide orders dated 29.12.2014, after furnishing surety, A-1 was released from custody. Perusal of the orders passed in Crl. Misc No. 1156/2015 discloses that petitioner No.2 / A-2 ( as per charge sheet) was granted anticipatory on 10.3.2015. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 13.4.2016, issued summons to A-1 and A-2, Crl.Misc.No.2823/2024 summons remained unserved, NBW was issued, proclamation was issued and date for publication of proclamation has been fixed as on or before 24.3.2024. Contention of learned counsel for accused is that accused did not receive summons from Court. Hence, they could not appear before Court, A-1 and A-2 have been granted bail earlier, subsequently, due to non appearance NBW has been issued.

10. In this context it is necessary to refer to the case of

Mujahidulla and another Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2022 (3) KCCR 2410. The Hon'ble High Court in Para 5 of the said Judgment has held as under :- “Having heard the respective learned counsel, it is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners were granted bail and thereafter theyappeared before theTrailcourtduring thecrimestageandafter filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and summons was issued against the petitioners, but they did not appear before the Trial court. The order sheet reveals that the summons was not served against the petitioners and when the summons was not served, NBW was issued and having taken note of the said factual aspect of the case, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the Trial court by filing the necessary application for recallingthewarrantissuedagainstthepetitioners. Thepetitionfiled Crl.Misc.No.2823/2024 before this court under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable once the petitioners have been enlarged on bail. With these observations,thepetitionisdisposedof”.

11. Facts of the cited case are similar to the facts of this

case. Ratio laid down in the aforesaid citation is applicable to the case on hand. Hence, I answer above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by petitioners/ accused No.1 and 2 in Mahadevapura Police Station crime No. 815/2014, is hereby rejected. Liberty is reserved to petitioner to eke out their remedies in accordance with law. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and typed by him, after corrections, pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of March, 2024) (NARASHIMSA.M.V.) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.